QuestionQUESTION: Hello, Eddie, and welcome back to Allexperts. As I indicated that I was going to do upon reactivation of your Allexperts profile, I wanted to follow up with you on some questions that you left unanswered, in regards to your “understanding” of the Trinity doctrine. Since you do enjoy writing about it a great deal, we can both agree that a basic and common sense requirement, would be that you understand it.

And you have assured us that you do, in the following emphatic statement…

“Having studied extensively the many facets and the many faces of the doctrine as it evolved throughout the millennia, I do understand the Trinitarian position! Having read many explanations of this doctrine throughout the years, I do indeed understand the Trinitarian position!”

So, since you are on record as saying that you understand the doctrine so thoroughly, I would like to quote for you again, the following statements regarding the Trinity, that have been posted by Rando. I will not ask you to elaborate on each one, unless of course you want to.

My question is simple….Since you understand the Trinity, do you or do you not, believe the following statements, present an accurate picture of the Trinitarian belief?

A few options....Perhaps you believe they all portray an accurate description of the Trinity, perhaps you believe none of them do, and perhaps you believe some do, and some don’t. Would you please outline which, if any, you believe are inaccurate, and state if you believe the following posted statements ARE accurate?

Thank you for your time on these statements….

Claim #1: ““The Trinity Doctrine comes down to this BOLD LIE: God became a man, so that man can become God.”

Claim #2: ““Trinitarians make the claim that Jesus is the Father himself in the Old Testament”

Claim #3: “The Trinity is made up of three Gods.”

Claim #4: “Matter of fact, Religion has not told the truth about the only True God, Jehovah. They say Jehovah alone is not the most high, he shares his position with two other gods that are equal to him.”

Claim #5: “By claiming the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father”

Additional note: In reading the above Claim #5, and DW’s actually reasonably fair definition of the Trinity in his post on the subject, I found a statement in DW’s post that would seem to present a problem with Rando’s statement in Claim #5.

From DW:

4) “The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit“

5) “The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit”

But Rando claims: “The Father is the Son and the Son is the Father”

Now, I am no rocket scientist, mind you, but it seems obvious to even me, that the above comments from DW and Rando, are completely contradictory. In other words…There is NO possible way they can BOTH be correct.

So, could you tell me WHICH statement most accurately represents the Trinity teaching?

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your straightforward answer to the questions, without diversions or attacks.

ANSWER: Well, I'm no rocket scientist either but there's someone that is more than a rocket scientist. In fact he is considered one of the greatest if not the greatest scientist who ever lived. His name is Sir Isaac Newton. He's not only great in science/physics but also an excellent student of the Bible!

In fact because of his wide knowledge of the Scriptures and because of diligent studies he did with regards to the Trinity doctrine, he CATEGORICALLY rejected it!

He rejected it for the simple reason that it contradicts the scriptures and what's more because he knew that it was based on spurious text.

Case in point for example, in his analysis of (the spurious texts at) John 5:7 and First Timothy 3:16

He said the following in his book: "An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture":

"If the ancient churches in debating and deciding the greatest mysteries of religion, knew nothing of these two texts, I understand not, why we should be so fond of them now the debates are over."

So, if Sir Isaac Newton - considered as the greatest scientist of all - deemed the doctrine as a corruption of the Scriptures, who am I or you to question his findings?

I say we're nothing, if brains are put side by side along with his!

Hence, it becomes obvious why he questioned the authority the "Church" (i.e. RCC) for teaching it since it's arguably based on errors and not on the scriptures.

As he said:

“She doth not require us to receive them by authority of General Councils, and much less by authority of Convocations, but only because they are taken out of the Scriptures. And therefore are we authorised by the Church to compare them with the Scriptures, and see how and in what sense they can be deduced from thence? And when we cannot see the Deduction we are not to rely upon the Authority of the Councils and Synods.”

“Even General Councils have erred and may err in matters of faith, and what they decree as necessary to salvation is of no strength or authority unless they can be shown to be taken from the holy Scripture.”

But in the final analysis, it's NOT someone else's words that decides whether the doctrine is true or not but the Bible. I'm sure you will agree that the final arbiter of such matter IS God's Written Word.

So it's on this premise that I take my stand against the doctrine.

As to my understanding, I do fully understand it - this way. That is, that NO ONE can fully explain it. Even the best knowledgeable person today can't comprehend such concept.

Why? Like I already said (in my other post), because it's an amalgamation of human philosophy based on years and years of theorizing on what God is.

That much I understand.

So unless you can prove me wrong, I fully believe that NO ONE can clearly and completely explain the doctrine since its very foundation is flawed, a flawed human understanding and philosophy.

In fact if one tries to explain it as best as he/she can, the reasoning becomes a circular argument (just like the argument of evolution theory) because the question never ends and the answers just go round and round.

Case in point:

Q: How can three separate God-persons not three individual God-persons but ONE?

Trinitarian response:

'It's because there's only ONE God but three Persons'.

Q: How is this possible?

Trinitarian response:

'With God all things are possible but the Trinity is a mystery, and is beyond human understanding. Thus, there's the person of God the Father, another person of God the Son and another person of God the Holy Spirit. Yet they are not three separate Gods but one God - a Mystery'.

'Where God the Father is Almighty, and so is the God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Yet they are not three Almighty Gods but one Almighty God - a Mystery'.

'Where God the Father has no Beginning and no End, and so is the God the Son and God the Holy Spirit has no beginning and no end, none compounding each or the other - a total Mystery'.

Other Trinitarian response:

'It's because it's the Nature f God, equal but not equal in some ways.'

And on and on we go. Any answer provided creates more questions. And any attempt to illustrate it however simple or complex, will but fail because in the end, this theory, this concept, this idea (whatever you call it), this Trinity godhead boils down to this - a Mystery doctrine that no one can fully explain and understand. Not D. Holland, Richard nor I or anyone else can make logical sense of it.

That much I understand.

In other words it's a worthless endeavor to embark on a philosophical discussions of a flawed conflicting human ideas. It leads to nowhere as there are no clear and satisfactory answers as to what it is and how the whole triune godhead works.

On the other hand, if we let the Holy Scriptures tell us who the Only True God is, then there's no mystery.

As our Lord Jesus Christ said:

“. . .This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

So based on what I said above, you should be able to say where I stand by now.

As for your questions as to which statements are accurate. From a Trintarian's point of understanding, depending on which version of Trinity they accept, they will probably say they are accurate. That much I know.

In fact during my studies on this subject, I came across several versions of the Trinity and are as listed below:

One of which many in Christendom believe that there's:

1) One God in three persons.
Where
a) The Father is God
b) The Son is God
c) The Holy Spirit is God

But all three persons are the same in that all three have no beginning, no end, co-equal, none compounding the other.

Basically they believe that:

“The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. . . . the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. . . . So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. . . . In this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal.” - Athanasian Creed

This is what the Roman Catholic Church believe.

While others believe that there's:

2) One God in three persons.
Where
a) The Father is God
b) The Son is God
c) The Holy Spirit is God

but all three are separate persons where:
-- The "God the Father" is greater than the "God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
-- The "God the Son and God the Holy Spiri"t are subject to the "God the Father".
-- All three persons are worshiped as God but the Son is worshiped to the glory of the "God the Father".

3) Then there are those who believe in some form of Arianism where the godhead is composed of three but unequal persons, where:

-- The Holy Spirit is not of the same substance as the Father and inferior to both the Father and Son.
-- Only the Father is uncreated and unknowable.

4) While some believe in a Trinity Godhead where God is revealed as God the Father, God The Son and God The Holy Ghost in separate occasions.

5) While still others teach that the Triune godhead has the Nature of God but of unequal rank and position where the Son and the Holy Spirit are both subject to the God the Father. And the Holy Spirit is subject to the God the Son. Three separate persons but are God as they share the same nature.

Each of these theories conflict with each other in one way or another but most of all they conflict with the scriptures.

So which one of these you subscribed to?

As for me, I stand with what our Lord Jesus Christ said:

“. . .This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3)

Thus the:

“. . .the Father is greater than I am. . .” (John 14:28) be it in heaven or on earth.

That is:

Jehovah God IS the ONLY True Living God and there's no one else. He ALONE is to be worshipped since "He created all things"(Matthew 4:10, John 4:22-24, Rev 4:11).
Jesus Christ is the "only (direct creation) begotten son of God" our Lord and redeemer from God (John 1:14, 1Jo 4:9, John 3:16).
The Holy Spirit is Jehovah God's powerful Active Force - it's NOT a person or a being but simply is God's means of power for creation - just as a hand is a means of power for creating things (Gen 1:2, Luke 11:20; Deuteronomy 5:15; Psalm 8:3).

As to what Brother Rando and Brother DW said - you should re-read what they said for there's no conflict between the two since we reject the Trinity doctrine.

Thanks,

Eddie G

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Just as I suspected...You didn't answer the question. In fact, you tried to do everything BUT answer it, for obvious reasons.

I did not ask you your position on the Trinity, although you did reveal further proof as to your complete lack of understanding of it, when you listed #4 as a "version of the Trinity", when it is actually ANTI-TRINITARIAN (as is #3) in that it is the perfect definition of Modalism. As Brother Darryl Murphy pointed out, and so have several others, you absolutely have no clue as to the difference. Why would any person who understands the Trinity, claim an anti-Trinitarian view known as Modalism, to be a "version of the Trinity"? They wouldn't.

Nor did I ask you what the JW stance is, nor Sir Isaac Newton's. Completely irrelevant to what you were asked.

So, try again....You were asked:

Do you agree that the following statements posted by Rando in my original question, are ACCURATE descriptions of Trinitarian doctrine?

And secondly, I asked you WHICH statement, the one made by Rando, or the one made by DW, most accurately describes Trinitarian doctrine. I will list the statements for you once again....

From DW:

4) “The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit“

5) “The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit”

From Rando: “The Father is the Son and the Son is the Father”

Now, it was a noble attempt for you to try and claim these statements do not contradict, but (and I'm stifling a laugh now), I believe it is quote obvious they do. And believe me, I understand the predicament this puts you in. But there is no possible way we can believe the "Father IS the Son", and also believe the "Father is NOT the Son". I mean, nice try, but even you with all your word twisting, cannot salvage that one.

And nice try at the diversion, but the issue is not whether Rando or DW BELIEVE in the Trinity. The issue is the contradictory way in which they both defined it. I'm simply asking you which statement is correct. And yes, the statements DO contradict.

Now, this time....try answering what was asked. Thank you.

ANSWER: Oh well, since Trinity mean Triune, Three Person in One Godhead, any version of it is still a Trinitarian concept. Simple as that.

Here again is #3 and #4:

"""3) Then there are those who believe in some form of Arianism where the godhead is composed of three but unequal persons, where:

-- The Holy Spirit is not of the same substance as the Father and inferior to both the Father and Son.
-- Only the Father is uncreated and unknowable.

4) While some believe in a Trinity Godhead where God is revealed as God the Father, God The Son and God The Holy Ghost in separate occasions.

Each of these theories conflict with each other in one way or another but most of all they conflict with the scriptures ."""

Which is agreement with what you said:

>>"when it is actually ANTI-TRINITARIAN (as is #3) in that it is the perfect definition of Modalism"<<

Try again.

As to what Brother Rando and what Brother DW said:

there's no conflict as they are looking at it from different trinitarian perspective - just like the list that I've provided. Still the subject remains the same - Trinity.

So which Trinity version do you subscribed to - is it the one taught by Catholics or the ONES taught by non-denominational churches?

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Eddie, I'll give you one thing....You're a great dancer. Great at dancing around questions, that is. Only you would have the nerve to claim that it is not contradictory to say that "The Father is the Son" and "The Father is not the Son" , and claim that they are harmonious statements, only from different perspectives.

Problem is, you have once again, shown you do not understand the teaching, for they are not different perspectives. They are actually 2 different doctrines. As has been pointed out now numerous times, one of those notions is Modalism, while one is Trinitarian in thought.

I am asking you which one ACCURATELY presents TRINITARIAN thought.

Now, you need to know that I have addressed your false statement that you made to Charles, that I have not answered your questions. In fact, I pointed out how you had not replied to MY questions for 4 days. Now, you have "replied" but have still not answered the questions. This is my third time asking you.

Simply trying to falsely pretend that there are different "versions" of the Trinity, just isn't going to suffice. They were not answering from 2 different "perspectives", because there is NO Trinitarian perspective that teaches ONE of those above quotes...I'm merely trying to see if you know which one it is.

Now again....Can you explain the obvious (to everyone else, at least) contradiction between DW's and Rando's quotes? I mean, I know you're trying to be the back scratcher here for both of them so as not to offend, but simply put, their statements are in obvious conflict. I need you, with all your "understanding", to settle the conflict for us and tell us which man is giving the accurate description of the Trinity.

And furthermore, I also asked you and am asking you for the third time now, do you believe the other statements from Rando, represent an accurate description of Trinitarian belief? For instance, do you believe the Trinity teaches that God became man, so that man can become God? Do you think that is what we teach? How about the others I listed?

Eddie, is there some other language I need to be typing in, so that you will understand, and finally ANSWER, the questions? For a guy who accuses others of not answering questions, your replies are really lacking.

AnswerGreat dancer, ehh?

Is it me or is it you that you can't seem to understand what your own doctrine teaches?

I mean really, I've provided different versions of the Trinity doctrine and yet you seem lost?

Now this would be cleared up if you only state which Trinity version you subscribe to. Is it the one taught by the Catholics where it states that:

“The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. . . . the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. . . . So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. . . . In this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal.” - Athanasian Creed

or is the one taught by Richard where he teaches that:

>>>"God is revealed in three persons; The Father is God; The Son is God; The Holy Spirit is God; There is one God. While I do believe this is true, I believe it totally misses the real essence of HOW this can be true and thus can be scrutinized very easily. For this reason, I used the word "nature" because this is absolutely key in understanding the concept.

... that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in nature, but not in rank within that nature. The Father sends the Son, and both the Father and Son send the Spirit. Therefore the Son submits to the will of the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to the will of both. Contrary to what Eddie said, every trinitarian will agree with this, and it does not detract from the equality in nature that is professed by them. This explains how the Father can be Jesus' God, how God can be the head of Christ, and how Jesus can be the Son of God and still have the same nature as God. Just like he was the Son of Man and still had the nature of man.

...Since we all agree that there is one God, and His name is YHWH, that point is established. Simply put, if three distinct persons have the same nature as God, and there is one God, then this one God has revealed Himself as three distinct persons. I will conclude by bringing up some important scriptural points with reference to Jehovah and to Jesus."<<

Or is it another form of Trinity where you stated that "Jesus is God Almighty as His Father" but lesser than the Father when he said that the "Father is greater than I am" (John 14:28)?

If not then what?

As to your claim that there's a conflict between my two brothers - DW and Rando, like I said there's none.
They both portray the Trinitarian position from different perspective.

But since you're so confused and can't see the unity. Here let me break it down for you:

>>From DW:

4) “The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit“

5) “The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit” <<

So Brother DW's statement is coming from the perspective of the Catholic Confession, namely from the Athanasian Creed.

Eddie G

Expertise

What the Bible Teaches under the leadership of the Lord Jesus Christ and his Faithful Slave and the guidance of the Sovereign Lord and the ONLY True God - Jehovah.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Experience

I will not tolerate any rivalry against my God!
“No weapon formed against you will have any success, And you will condemn any tongue that rises up against you in the judgment. This is the heritage of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness is from me,” declares Jehovah.” (Isaiah 54:17)
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/
https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Organizationshttps://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Publicationshttps://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/

Education/Credentials https://www.jw.org/en/free-bible-study/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note to readers:
If an annoying advertisement or inappropriate advertisement pops up - you can turn it off by clicking on the X mark at the top right corner of the advertisement window.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>